Please select a service to learn more:

Identity and Credit

Driver's Records

Criminal Records

References/Credentialing

Substance Abuse/Physicals

Global Solutions

Applicant Tracking

Solutions by Industry

Personal Background Checks

0

This great search was powered by Search Unleashed.
Help to remove this message by getting the site owner to support this software.

… convened the investigation to determine whether the new Equal Employment Opportunity Council (EEOC) Guidance and other prohibitions or limitations on the use of criminal background checks encourage or discourage re-entry by former offenders into the job market.

“Our business is based on the core belief that background checks are necessary for employers to make informed hiring decisions,” said Nick Fishman, chief marketing officer, EmployeeScreenIQ, speaking on behalf of the company …

Continue Reading

0

It’s hard to believe yet another week is ending and we’re already one week into December! Earlier this week, we talked about background checks within Boy Scouts of America, with volunteer background checks being the focus. Check out our blog, Boy Scouts of America Did Not Do Background Checks to Keep Costs Low. We also wrote about ways to prepare your candidate for a background check, with a useful infographic from Recruiting Blogs. And in case you missed it, check out our post  regarding the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington, A Haze of Confusion Remains for Colorado and Washington. Lastly, EmployeeScreenIQ’s Nick Fishman, is testifying on behalf of ESIQ today at the US Civil Rights Commission briefing on the “Impact of Criminal Background Checks and the EEOC’s Conviction Records Policy on the Employment of Black And Hispanic Workers.” Check out our blog post from last week with more information on the briefing, EmployeeScreenIQ’s Nick Fishman Appearing Before Civil Rights Commission.

 

Boy Scouts of America Did Not Do Background Checks to Keep Costs Low

I’m sure you’ve heard more than enough about the rising number of reports of abuse in Boy Scouts of America. However, another angle regarding criminal background checks within BSA is interesting. Not only did the organization not do criminal background checks for their volunteers for a long time, but for many years, they felt it was not worth the cost to do background checks for anyone working within the organization. See More

 

[...]

Continue Reading

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

It has been seven months since the EEOC issued new guidance on employers’ use of criminal background checks. There has been quite a bit of information released since then and we wanted to take a few moments to share some of the feedback we’ve received from our clients since May. See also our blog post and webinar on the topic.

We’re hearing that the EEOC guidelines on criminal records have caused tremendous confusion among our clients.  There are three main areas that are causing the most confusion. First, the EEOC recommends as a best practice that employers abolish the job application question that asks if the person has been convicted of a crime.  This recommendation is not feasible for many employers who have bona fide job qualifications that require exclusions based on certain types of crimes. Employers are understandably confused about when they can and should ask about criminal history and request a background check. Delaying the question can cause both the employer and the candidate to invest heavily in an opportunity or even quit their job only to be disqualified later in the process.

[...]

Continue Reading

1

For the past several weeks, I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about how a job candidate experiences their side of an employment background check and what hiring managers can do to create it a friendlier screening process.  After all, these are people that we want to hire.

According to our 2010 Employment Background Screening Survey, 96% of employers felt that their candidates understood why employee background checks were a part of the hiring process.  So if that’s the case, why are most candidates anxious about the process regardless of whether they have something to hide? [...]

Continue Reading

0

 

This week at EmployeeScreenIQ, we jumped right back into the work week with our hands full. We announced our upcoming December webinar, Background Screening Partner Selection: What You Don’t Know CAN Hurt You. We also covered the story of Instant Checkmate, an online background screening company, that possibly uses racial profiling in their online advertisements. Lastly, we were excited to announce an upcoming U.S. Commission on Civil Rights briefing regarding changes in EEOC guidelines and the impact of criminal background checks.  EmployeeScreenIQ’s Nick Fishman will have an opportunity to testify on behalf of background screening companies at this briefing. There were a couple other posts this week, as well as a post this morning, CFPB Releases New Background Screening Forms . . . Again. As always, continue to read our blog and if you’re not subscribed, consider adding the IQ blog to your RSS feed!

 

Background Screening Partner Selection: What You Don’t Know CAN Hurt You!

By now, you know the importance of a background check when identifying and hiring the best employee. But simply having an employment background screening provider is not enough. The truth is that your employment background checks are only as effective and reliable as your provider. So how do you weed through all of the competing sales jargon to identify the best partner for you? See More

[...]

Continue Reading

0

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has announced its briefing regarding the recent changes in the EEOC’s Conviction Records Policy on the employment of black and Hispanic workers as well as the impact of criminal background checks for employers. On one side of the conversation, it’s argued by employers that conducting criminal background checks assists in ultimately ensuring a safer work environment for everyone, reducing negligent hiring and criminal activity in the workplace. From the EEOC’s perspective the increase in criminal background checks for employment could cause discrimination in the hiring process. This hearing will bring in a number of experts who will present their experiences to assist in this investigation. This investigation will serve for use in future decisions with changes in EEOC guidelinesEmployeeScreenIQ’s Nick Fishman, Chief Marketing Officer and EVP, will be among these experts and presenting the perspective from the background screening industry.

[...]

Continue Reading

0

What are labor and employment attorneys around the country advising their clients to do when it comes to complying with the revised EEOC guidelines for employers who conduct criminal background checks (issued in April 2012)?  Judy Greenwald from the Crains’ publication, Business Insurance, polled some of the nation’s leading experts on employment background check laws in her article, “Employers advised against automatic hiring ban on people with criminal backgrounds”.

Substantive advice has been hard to come by since the guidance was first released, so we definitely think employers should take a minute to review the highlights below.

  • “The one thing the policy should definitely state is that there is no automatic ban” for an applicant with a criminal conviction, said Amy L. Bess, a shareholder with law firm Vedder Price L.L.P. in New York.
  • Pamela Q. Devata, a partner with law firm Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P. in Chicago, said she recommends employers remove any questions about criminal history from their application forms altogether and move it to a later stage, such as after the job interview or upon a conditional offer of employment.
  • Michael A. Warner Jr., a partner with law firm Franczek Radelet P.C. in Chicago, said, “I would also document in your policies why certain convictions, certain types of criminal history” would disqualify a job applicant, he said.
  • “Try to make sure there’s a connection between a demonstrable job requirement, and any restrictions that (the employers) are putting in place with respect to criminal history,” said Marc A. Mandelman, senior counsel with law firm Proskauer Rose L.L.P. in New York.

View Full Article 

Continue Reading

0

EmployeeScreenIQ has had an exciting week with several updates to our IQ Blog as well as a successful webinar, “Get Your HR Nerd On: Background Checks Through Platform Integration” on Wednesday, October 24th. Special thanks to our guest panelists, Susan Strayer LaMotte, Founder of Exaqueo and James Thomas, VP at TalentTech. Below you’ll find a highlight of our blog posts this week. We would love to hear from our readers, so please don’t be shy to engage with us on the blog itself or on any of our social media sites (please find the links below.) Take a look and see what you may have missed from EmployeeScreenIQ this week!

AAU Data Offers Greatest Case Study on Importance of Background Checks

“This past summer, the Amateur Athletic Union announced mandatory background screening for all adult coaches, volunteers and staff as well as stricter guidelines for how to interact with children. And earlier this week it was reported that of the 27,000 people they screened, 150 had issues that according to the AAU “could prove to be problematic for AAU membership.”  (See More)

 

 

EEOC Issues Concerning Direction on Employee Background Checks

“Since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission introduced their guidelines on employers’ use of criminal background checks back in April, I’ve taken a wait and see approach. Sure, I’ve been concerned about the fact that the guidance wasn’t really clear in certain areas: Should employers remove the question that asks an applicant to provide information on past convictions?” (See More)

 

 

Ohio Background Screening Law Not Perfect, But Deserves Applause

“I’m giving Ohio State Senator Shirley Smith (D- 21st District) an A- on her effort to get those with criminal records back to work. When she first floated the idea of making certain felony convictions eligible for expungement, I bristled and told myself that it didn’t stand a chance of passing.” (See More)

 

 

 

 

Have a fantastic weekend!

Continue Reading

3

Since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission introduced their guidelines on employers’ use of criminal background checks back in April, I’ve taken a wait and see approach.  Sure, I’ve been concerned about the fact that the guidance wasn’t really clear in certain areas: Should employers remove the question that asks an applicant to provide information on past convictions? How exactly is a company supposed to conduct and individualized assessment? What does the EEOC mean when they say that there will be certain jobs that clearly won’t be able to hire those with particular offenses?

I wanted to believe them when they said that these guidelines are simply a continuation of the policies that were already in place.  Well, after seeing the following quote in the Human Resources Journal, I’m getting a little concerned that might not be the case.  See below.

“If companies ask job applicants about their criminal histories they could face discrimination lawsuits. John Hendrickson, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago district said, ‘I would suggest to (businesses) that they think long and hard about why they think they need to do a criminal background check,’ insinuating that if they felt it was not required, they’d be safer not doing it.”

So, here are a few questions I’d like to know the answer to.

  • Does the EEOC has a list of positions they believe should be exempt from employee background checks?
    • If so, how is the EEOC an authority on determining a company’s vulnerabilities?
    • If they don’t have this list, aren’t they just setting up employers for failure?
  • Will the EEOC testify in court on behalf of an employer that decided not to conduct an employment background check when they get sued for hiring someone whose past criminal record could have suggested they might be a danger to persons or property?
    • Will they assume any liability caused to these businesses?
  • Will the EEOC make restitution to those harmed by these people?

I think the EEOC ought to look at the legislation Ohio State Senator Shirley Smith just passed last month.  Instead of punishing employers for conducting background checks, she’s initiated a program which allows those with convictions to apply for a certificate of employability.  And in the event a person with such a certificate engages in criminal activity in the workplace, it offers the employer insulation from law suits.  This approach comes much closer to aligning interests of employers and people with criminal records.

 

Continue Reading

2

The City of Newark, NJ has passed an ordinance that seriously limits employers’ ability to conduct criminal background checks. The ordinance is effective November 18, 2012, and applies to employers with five or more employees that do business, employ, or take applications for employment within the city of Newark, including the City of Newark and City departments.  The City’s action follows a trend that we have seen in other major cities like Philadelphia, and more recently, Seattle and Washing D.C.  Article One deals with employment, and Article Two of the ordinance deals with housing. Under Article One, an employer cannot conduct any pre-application inquiries related to the criminal history of any applicant, and is required to make a good faith determination that the relevant position is of such sensitivity that a criminal history inquiry is warranted. Only after the applicant has been qualified and a conditional offer has been made can the employer inquire about criminal background.

The ordinance restates requirements that exist under the FCRA and in the EEOC guidelines, like requiring written consent of the applicant. The consent must inform the applicant that, following any adverse decision, the applicant or employee will have the right and opportunity to present evidence regarding the accuracy and relevance of the background check. This requirement appears to be in addition to pre-adverse and adverse action requirements of the FCRA, which raises preemption questions.

As for the content of the background check, employers may inquire about:
•Indictable offense convictions for eight (8) years following the sentence, including termination of any period of incarceration;
•Disorderly persons convictions or municipal ordinance violations for five (5) years following the sentence, including termination of any period of incarceration; and
•Pending criminal charges, which may include cases that have been continued without a finding, until such time as the case is dismissed.
Employers are prohibited from inquiring about or taking adverse action against any applicant or employee on the basis of:
•Any arrest or criminal accusation made against the applicant or employee, which is not then pending against that individual and which did not result in a conviction;
•Any records which are erased, expunged, the subject of an executive pardon, or otherwise legally nullified; and
•Any juvenile adjudications of delinquency or any records which have been sealed.
Convictions for murder, voluntary manslaughter, and sex offenses punishable by a term of incarceration in state prison are not subject to the 8 year limitation.

If an employer runs a criminal background check, the ordinance enumerates factors to evaluate the applicant:
1. The nature of the crime and its relationship to the duties of the position sought or held
2. Any information pertaining to the degree of rehabilitation and good conduct, including any information produced by the applicant or employee, or produced on his or her behalf
3. Whether the prospective job provides an opportunity for the commission of a similar offense(s)
4. Whether the circumstances leading to the offense(s) are likely to reoccur
5. The amount of time that has elapsed since the offense(s) and whether the employer factored that into the employment decision; and
6. Any certificate of rehabilitation issued by any state or federal agency
If these sound familiar, many of these factors are discussed and recommended in the EEOC’s guidance on criminal background checks, which was published in April and we told you about here. The ordinance requires that the factors be documented on a special form–the Applicant Criminal Record Consideration form, which explains how the employer should document the decision to revoke a conditional offer. An applicant who has a conditional offer revoked subsequent to a criminal record inquiry must be provided with a copy of the Applicant Criminal Record Consideration form.

The adverse action process is different than the federal process, providing the applicant with an opportunity to respond. The applicant has 10 business days after receipt of the notices to contact the employer and request additional consideration, all which must be carefully documented by the employer.

Despite the carve-out that the new requirements do not apply when a federal or state law requires a criminal background check, the new law is sure to raise questions and place a heavy burden on Newark employers. This is yet another example of legislation going forward without the appropriate input from all of the stakeholders. I would love to hear what you think.

Continue Reading

All information contained on this website is provided by employeescreenIQ solely for the convenience of the site viewers. employeescreenIQ is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided on this website or otherwise by employeescreenIQ should be deemed as legal guidance or advice. Users are solely responsible for complying with all local, state, and federal laws relating to the use of any information provided on this website and any information products provided by employeescreenIQ. Users should consult with their own legal counsel if they have questions regarding their legal responsibilities or any information provided by employeescreenIQ.